Is cyclist doping a thing of the past?
Nearly 200 cyclists mounted their bikes last Saturday for the start of the 2010 Tour de France, a 22-day, 2,263-mile ride from Rotterdam to the Champs-Elysees in Paris. The Tour is the highest competition for a professional cyclist and as a result, it often plays host to the dark side of cycling. After a scandal-free Tour in 2009, organizers are hoping that perhaps there will be another clean race this year.
Mikel Astarloza was suspended in 2009 after the Tour for failing a test during the event, but no rider was found doping. The head of the French Anti-Doping Agency accused the International Cycling Union of not fully respecting testing procedures and the subsequent row led to a split between the UCI and Tour officials.
"Without doubt the UCI is one of the most active and most effective international federations in terms of the fight against doping, in particular with the introduction of the biological passport," said UCI President Pat McQuaid in a press release. "I asked [the World Anti-Doping Agency] to send independent observers to the 2010 Tour de France so that our activities can be submitted to their impartial examination.”
When the season began, the UCI was optimistic about its progress in the fight against doping. It should have been good news when the 2006 Tour champion, American cyclist Floyd Landis, admitted to having used drugs, but his confession cast new shadows over the sport when Landis, a former teammate of Lance Armstrong, accused the seven-time champion and other prominent cyclists of doping offences as well.
On top of the doping controversies, fans of the sport learned of another possible form of cheating. Former Italian cyclist Davide Cassani revealed in a television program that he had tried a new bicycle powered by a concealed engine and alleged that it had been used in professional races before. The UCI acknowledge the risk of such tampering and announced that all bikes would be scanned for concealed engines before the race began on July 3.
Landis and Armstrong
A long and difficult task is now in the hands of anti-doping officials who seek to build a case against Lance Armstrong and a group of his associates who have been accused of systematic doping.
"I think we are very optimistic that this inquiry will be a fruitful one,” said David Howman, the director general of WADA, while talking to the New York Times. “But this is going to take some time because we’re not really talking about a simple anti-doping case here. Remember the Balco case, how long that took? Well, we could be still talking about this one in 2016.”
With Landis, who used to be at the top of the sport, as an informant, investigators can be expected to approach every top American cyclist. Two of the cyclists being investigated have said they had already met with investigators to tell of their past involvement, but would not provide the details of those meetings. George Hincapie, former teammate of both Landis and Armstrong, is troubled by the suggestion that he too was involved.
"It bothers me, because I've been doing this for 17 years and never heard anything bad about me," Hincapie said to ESPN. "You can go ask any of the cleanest teams in the peloton—Jonathan Vaughters, Slipstream, Columbia. How many times they've offered me contracts and wanted me to ride for them because of my reputation, and because they have done the due diligence on me, and then you have someone attacking me."
Jim Ochowicz, the USA Cycling board president and known as the “Godfather of American cycling” for taking the first American team to the Tour de France in 1986, said that he had not been contacted by investigators and that he was not concerned about the investigation.
“It has no effect on me whatsoever,” Ochowicz, one of Armstrong’s closest friends, commented to the New York Times, explaining that the allegations against him were untrue. “The authorities should absolutely stop [the cheating], but I have no clue what went on. I wasn’t a part of it.”
The inquiry is not likely to disrupt the Tour, fraud investigations move slowly because of the amount of detailed evidence necessary for conviction.
Tags: